SMALL ADDITION TO THE LOW 2-C

[PrinceofPein]

Where did you guys get the notion DT disagreed with the thread?
like seriously learn to read, no one is changing the standard, DT only said it is not necessary the term "Space-time Continuum" already means all of time of a certain space, something you will know if you read the linked wiki in the low 2C tiering page,
So if Ultima agreed with DT it means he means no note is needed as it already covers

"Spacetime continuum" in the explanation already has a link that explains what spacetime means. Isn't that enough?

and to answer DT question, it is not enough cause there are people who will still argue it.

this is not the thread to change the standard, i dont know how you guys dont get that through your skull already it is just to add a note that explains what space-time continuum means as per what is in the link that is on the page

 

[PrinceofPein]

My responses to what's in the OP are largely the same as what DT outlined in the first page, so, I don't think there's much for me to say on that front. The whole deal with whether destroying multiple universes should be automatically 2-C is best reserved for another thread, as others said above, given how far it deviates from the premise of the OP.

thanks for the reply, i think yuri plans to make the thread for how we treat 2C

 

[KLOL506]

Where did you guys get the notion DT disagreed with the thread?
like seriously learn to read, no one is changing the standard, DT only said it is not necessary the term "Space-time Continuum" already means all of time of a certain space, something you will know if you read the linked wiki in the low 2C tiering page,
So if Ultima agreed with DT it means he means no note is needed as it already covers

The mere fact that DT said that "space-time continuum" already means all of time (Past, present and future) by default, means he disagrees with your proposed addition of "must also state/show that all of past, present and future is destroyed".

and to answer DT question, it is not enough cause there are people who will still argue it.

Several staff members have already voiced their disagreements against this, and for good reason: It's promptly redundant.

 

[QuasiYuri]

thanks for the reply, i think yuri plans to make the thread for how we treat 2C

I said I could work on a continuation with Kingpin if they don't mind*.
Otherwise my closed thread sum up what I think and didn't have any valid counter arguments related to the subject.

 

[PrinceofPein]

The mere fact that DT said that "space-time continuum" already means all of time (Past, present and future) by default, means he disagrees with your proposed addition of "must also state/show that all of past, present and future is destroyed".

dude you didnt read the OP or something? like for real?
where did i propose such? this was my only proposal, like read

So i propose that these should be the new low 2C section of the tiering page

Low 2-C | Universe level+: Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums(the entirety of past, present and future) of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:

the bolded part are the only thing i am adding so i dont know where you are coming from or where you saw such, my proposal was simply us defining space-time continuum on the tiering page.
but to take on what you said, if you did not destroy or stated or shown to affect the space-time continuum of a universe you are not low 2c

Several staff members have already voiced their disagreements against this, and for good reason: It's promptly redundant.

while several also agreed, not like it matters tho as it is just adding a note to the page not changing standard

 

[YukaSama4]

Where did you guys get the notion DT disagreed with the thread?
like seriously learn to read, no one is changing the standard, DT only said it is not necessary the term "Space-time Continuum" already means all of time of a certain space, something you will know if you read the linked wiki in the low 2C tiering page,
So if Ultima agreed with DT it means he means no note is needed as it already covers

No, you are proposing that a character should say "I'm going to destroy the past, present, and future of this universe", or the destruction of past, present, and future should be mentioned to get a low 2C tier, but DT said that the Space-time continuum includes past, present, and future by default so no need for your addition of past, present, and future.
If it's stated that the space-time continuum is destroyed then its low 2C even if it doesn't specifically say "past, present, and future"

So if Ultima agreed with DT it means he means no note is needed as it already covers

..What? But Ultima clearly declared that he disagree with your proposal

My responses to what's in the OP are largely the same as what DT outlined in the first page

Why would he have responses to the OP if he agrees with everything you have said? Or you are saying that he also cant read the OP correctly...

 

[KLOL506]

dude you blind or something? like for real?
where did i propose such? this was my only proposal, like read
So i propose that these should be the new low 2C section of the tiering page

I clearly read what you proposed, and I clearly said that it's promptly redundant.

the bolded part are the only thing i am adding so i dont know where you are coming from or where you saw such, my proposal was simply us defining space-time continuum on the tiering page.
but to take on what you said, if you did not destroy or stated or shown to affect the space-time continuum of a universe you are not low 2c

Again, it's redundant.

while several also agreed.

More disagreed (Especially DT and AKM, latter being a bureaucrat, who has a higher authority than most other staff members, but DT is a consultant for our wiki policy pages and has a similar level of authority alongside AKM and Ultima) than agreed.

Staff that disagreed: AKM, DT, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Ultima, Celestial Pegasus, Ogbunabali

Staff that agreed: LordGriffin1000

 

[PrinceofPein]

No, you are proposing that a character should say "I'm going to destroy the past, present, and future of this universe", or the destruction of past, present, and future should be mentioned to get a low 2C tier, but DT said that the Space-time continuum includes past, present, and future by default so no need for your addition of past, present, and future.
If it's stated that the space-time continuum is destroyed then its low 2C even if it doesn't specifically say "past, present, and future"

..What? But Ultima clearly declared that he disagree with your proposal

Why would he have responses to the OP if he agrees with everything you have said? Or you are saying that he also cant read the OP correctly...

Barth read you should really read, it is tiring at this point, stop being a wall and read the OP again

 

[QuasiYuri]

No, you are proposing that a character should say "I'm going to destroy the past, present, and future of this universe", or the destruction of past, present, and future should be mentioned to get a low 2C tier, but DT said that the Space-time continuum includes past, present, and future by default so no need for your addition of past, present, and future.
If it's stated that the space-time continuum is destroyed then its low 2C even if it doesn't specifically say "past, present, and future

It's not what they are proposing. It's just to precise what it means because a lot of people are confused by it.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I clearly read what you proposed, and I clearly said that it's promptly redundant.
Again, it's redundant.

Just look at the countless debates and Q&A threads on the subject, and you'll find that adding 3 small words of precision isn't redundant.

Unless you think that having the same questions over and over is a good thing.

More disagreed (Especially DT and AKM, latter being a bureaucrat, who has a higher authority than most other staff members, but DT is a consultant for our wiki policy pages and has a similar level of authority alongside AKM and Ultima) than agreed.

Appeal to autority isn't really good either.

 

[KLOL506]

It's not what they are proposing. It's just to precise what it means because a lot of people are confused by it.

Then they should have clarified that you don't need to blatantly show statements where it says "past, present and future" are being destroyed, it should have said that this is what destroying a spacetime-continuum entails because a spacetime continuum by default contains all points of time including all of the past, present and future.

 

[TOAAPRESENCE1]

while several also agreed, not like it matters tho as it is just adding a note to the page not changing standard

disagreed: AKM, DT, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Ultima, Celestial Pegasus, Ogbunabali

agreed: LordGriffin1000

 

[KLOL506]

Just look at the countless debates and Q&A threads on the subject, and you'll find that adding 3 small words of precision isn't redundant.

Unless you think that having the same questions over and over is a good thing.

And DT and Kingpin already answered that. Spacetime-continuums by default already encompass the past, present and future.

Appeal to autority isn't really good either.

Not so much as an appeal to authority as it is just saying what a spacetime-continuum possesses by default.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Then they should have clarified that you don't need to blatantly show statements where it says "past, present and future" are being destroyed, it should have said that this is what destroying a spacetime-continuum entails because a spacetime continuum by default contains all points of time including all of the past, present and future.

It's like, what they are explaining for several comments already.
It's also why they just put (past, present, future) and not "the character should be stated to have..."

 

[Odinson]

you are proposing that a character should say "I'm going to destroy the past, present, and future of this universe", or the destruction of past, present, and future should be mentioned to get a low 2C tier,

Thats not true. He's proposing this so people don't say "it's not on the page so it isn't true" like some did in that bleach thread.

 

[KLOL506]

It's like, what they are explaining for several comments already.
It's also why they just put (past, present, future) and not "the character should be stated to have..."

Then OP should have clarified it further in the thread.

 

[QuasiYuri]

And DT and Kingpin already answered

So it's better have countless questions thread and debates because adding a three word definition sounds too hard to do?

Not so much as an appeal to authority as it is just saying what a spacetime-continuum possesses by default.

Saying "higher staff so better" is an appeal to authority.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Then OP should have clarified it further in the thread.

Which they did. Deciding on who the blame of "I misunderstood vs they didn't explain well" is doesn't matter anyway.

What matter is that it's just adding a very small definition to prevent more useless and time-wasting questions.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Thats not true. He's proposing this so people don't say "it's not on the page so it isn't true" like some did in that bleach thread.

Thanks man, thats the only reason why i am proposing this.
It was argued for 5 pages that you dont need to affect all of time to qualify for low 2C, and when i explained to them they said "Ït is not on the page" and i told them to read the linked wiki but none did, so yes this was why this thread is necessary.
if they wont read the linked page then we can just help them summarise what space-time continuum mean

 

[KLOL506]

Which they did. Deciding on who the blame of "I misunderstood vs they didn't explain well" is doesn't matter anyway.

What matter is that it's just adding a very small definition to prevent more useless and time-wasting questions.

It was argued for 5 pages that you dont need to affect all of time to qualify for low 2C, and when i explained to them they said "Ït is not on the page" and i told them to read the linked wiki but none did, so yes this was why this thread is necessary.
if they wont read the linked page then we can just help them summarise what space-time continuum mean

Then it should have been more like this:

"Characters who are capable of significantly affecting, creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entirety of past, present and future, as a spacetime continuum encompasses these by default) of a universal scale.

Do note that it is not mandatory to require additional blatant statements like "all of the past, present and future will be destroyed" for qualification, merely mentioning the destruction of a spacetime-continuum/all of space and time with enough context should be more than enough as it fulfills the same task."

This way, we could have avoided the confusion entirely and could have more easily convinced people that you don't need additional "past, present, future" destructions word for word like that.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Then it should have been more like this:

"Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entirety of past, present and future, as a spacetime continuum encompasses these by default) of a universal scale.

Do note that it is not mandatory to require additional statements like "all of the past, present and future will be destroyed" for qualification, merely mentioning the destruction of a spacetime-continuum/all of space and time with enough context should be more than enough as it fulfills the same task."

I don't think you need this second precision though, since the first never said you should say past/present/future, just that spacetime-continuum is past/present/future

Otherwise 3-A would need a paragraph saying:

Do note that it is not mandatory to require additional statements like "all of the matter in the universe will be destroyed" for qualification, merely mentioning the destruction of a universe with enough context should be more than enough as it fulfills the same task."

And similar ones for the other tiers.
It wouldn't really make much sense.

 

[KLOL506]

I don't think you need this second precision though, since the first never said you should say past/present/future, just that spacetime-continuum is past/present/future

Otherwise 3-A would need a paragraph saying:

Do note that it is not mandatory to require additional statements like "all of the matter in the universe will be destroyed" for qualification, merely mentioning the destruction of a universe with enough context should be more than enough as it fulfills the same task."

And similar ones for the other tiers.
It wouldn't really make much sense.

Yeah I know, a bit too lengthy on my part. But I noted it down just in case people try asking for making it mandatory (WHICH IT ABSOLUTELY SHOULDN'T BE).

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Q: How do temporal dimensions impact on tiering?​

​

​

A: The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime. Time by its very definition contain past, present and future of all objects existing in it.

This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

Simple way of attaining Low2C is destroying 3A or higher sized 3D structure accross past, present and future or uncountably infinite amount of such 3A constructs. Another method is by simply destroying entity/structure which is defined as atleast an universal or higher sized spacetime.

Bolded part is edits...and I also recommend linking definition of time in the "temporal dimension(s)".

 

[YukaSama4]

It's not what they are proposing. It's just to precise what it means because a lot of people are confused by it.

Then why tf the whole derailment about Bleach was here? He made that thread about Bleach and asked everyone there to give him a statement of "past, present, and future" being destroyed and then they started debating that here for days, almost everyone understood it that way

Do note that it is not mandatory to require additional blatant statements like "all of the past, present and future will be destroyed" for qualification, merely mentioning the destruction of a spacetime-continuum/all of space and time with enough context should be more than enough as it fulfills the same task."

This way, we could have avoided the confusion entirely and could have more easily convinced people that you don't need additional "past, present, future" destructions word for word like that.

^ literally yeah lol.
This would have avoided the whole discussion/derailment that happened here

 

[PrinceofPein]

Then it should have been more like this:

"Characters who are capable of significantly affecting, creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entirety of past, present and future, as a spacetime continuum encompasses these by default) of a universal scale.

this is even more redundant and way too long and repetitive

Do note that it is not mandatory to require additional blatant statements like "all of the past, present and future will be destroyed" for qualification, merely mentioning the destruction of a spacetime-continuum/all of space and time with enough context should be more than enough as it fulfills the same task."

obviously

This way, we could have avoided the confusion entirely and could have more easily convinced people that you don't need additional "past, present, future" destructions word for word like that.

there was no confusion whatsoever, like it was just this

So i propose that these should be the new low 2C section of the tiering page

Low 2-C | Universe level+: Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums(the entirety of past, present and future) of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:

no one ever said that it is mandatory or statements like that was needed, i only said we should define space-time continuum, where you are seeing that it must be mandatory is beyond me.

Then why tf the whole derailment about Bleach was here? He made that thread about Bleach and asked everyone there to give him a statement of "past, present, and future" being destroyed and then they started debating that here for days, almost everyone understood it that way

it is not my fault you could not comprehend what i said, i said there was nothing pointing to yhwach destroying the entire space-time continuum i.e. past, present and future of the universe as per the low 2c standard.
and yes i am right it is the same thing. like i said calm down and read

 

[Odinson]

He made that thread about Bleach and asked everyone there to give him a statement of "past, present, and future" being destroyed

I think because bleach lacked it i haven't read the entire thing.

And he was saying that because he wanted to simplify his point as much as possible. What he said there is not what you think he said.

 

[KLOL506]

this is even more redundant and way too long and repetitive

I already replied to Yuri that it was too long, regardless, that's not what I'd actually suggest putting in the page to begin with. I merely typed it up quickly to put my point out that right now it makes it look like it's mandatory even if it's not the intent.

obviously

there was no confusion whatsoever, like it was just this

More like you forgot to put that clarification in the thread, but oh well, glad we could finally clear that up.

So i propose that these should be the new low 2C section of the tiering page

I still think something more could be added so that it doesn't sound like a mandatory requirement like so many people thought a while back.

it is not my fault you could not comprehend what i said, i said there was nothing pointing to yhwach destroying the entire space-time continuum i.e. past, present and future of the universe as per the low 2c standard.
and yes i am right it is the same thing. like i said calm down and read

Can we not argue about Bleach here? Leave that for another thread.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I already replied to Yuri that it was too long, regardless, that's not what I'd actually suggest putting in the page to begin with. I merely typed it up quickly to put my point out that right now it makes it look like it's mandatory even if it's not the intent.

aiit

More like you forgot to put that clarification in the thread, but oh well, glad we could finally clear that up.

well i was really shocked at was being argued here tbh, cause people keep bringing things not in the OP up, so it was a bit tiring and annoying

I still think something more could be added so that it doesn't sound like a mandatory requirement like so many people thought a while back.

i really dont know what made it sound mandatory in it tbh, its like saying defining something or simplifying it makes it more mandatory

Can we not argue about Bleach here? Leave that for another thread.

sure, my bad

 

[thetechmaster36]

Kinda sounds like you're changing the standards to me if you included this in your OP (good joke at least):

while this will downgrade a lot of low 2C, as i can think of a few off my head but i will not mention the said verses for peace to reign here.
jokes aside there are lots of verses this will affect.

But regardless, I disagree with this proposal for the reasons that others have said before: it just seems redundant to note if we're already considering a space-time continuum to include all of time, aka past, present, and future, like DontTalk and KingPin have said.

 

[Teezar]

The mere fact that DT said that "space-time continuum" already means all of time (Past, present and future) by default, means he disagrees with your proposed addition of "must also state/show that all of past, present and future is destroyed".

Wow......cool.

 

[KLOL506]

Kinda sounds like you're changing the standards to me if you included this in your OP (good joke at least):

But regardless, I disagree with this proposal for the reasons that others have said before: it just seems redundant to note if we're already considering a space-time continuum to include all of time, aka past, present, and future, like DontTalk and KingPin have said.

We just confirmed that there's no mandatory requirements for demanding statements like "past, present and future" word-for-word. Just a mere mention of a spacetime-continuum/all of space and time being whacked already does that by default.

The proposals only mean to further add what a spacetime continuum encompasses by default, that being past, present and future (Which I am fine with, provided the necessary modifications are carried out so that it doesn't sound like we're making a mandatory requirement for asking additional blatant "past, present and future" statements in feats to qualify for Low 2-C).

 

[thetechmaster36]

We just confirmed that there's no mandatory requirements for demand for statements like "past, present and future" word-for-word. Just a mere mention of a spacetime-continuum already does that by default.

The proposals only mean to further add what a spacetime continuum encompasses by default, that being past, present and future (Which I am fine with, provided the necessary modifications are carried out so that it doesn't sound like we're making a mandatory requirement for asking additional blatant "past, present and future" statements in feats to qualify for Low 2-C).

I understand that it's to add some sort of explanation as to what a space-time continuum represents, but the explanation itself is just a click away from the actual wikipedia article of space-time, so to me, it just seems a little unnecessary.

That said, a small explanation wouldn't be too bad, but again, seems a little unnecessary.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I understand that it's to add some sort of explanation as to what a space-time continuum represents, but the explanation itself is just a click away from the actual wikipedia article of space-time, so to me, it just seems a little unnecessary.

That said, a small explanation wouldn't be too bad, but again, seems a little unnecessary.

Given how we have entire explanations dedicated to stuff we give wikipedia links for (looking at you alephs shit), I think it just would be nice.

Also wikipedia uses complicated words.

 

[thetechmaster36]

Given how we have entire explanations dedicated to stuff we give wikipedia links for (looking at you alephs shit), I think it just would be nice.

Also wikipedia uses complicated words.

Fair enough, a simple explanation of what a space-time continuum represents is fine then. As long as it notes that statements or mentions of destroying past, present and future are not mandatory for the tier, and that simply destroying the continuum is fine.

True dat, why must the world be so complicated nowadays

 

[Kingcrim212]

So when will the proposal be added

 

[TOAAPRESENCE1]

So when will the proposal be added

given that majority of staff is against it, it wont get added

 

[KLOL506]

given that majority of staff is against it, it wont get added

Prolly needs some further tweaking to the justification so that it doesn't sound like a mandatory requirement and then maybe a couple of re-evaluations.

 

[QuasiYuri]

given that majority of staff is against it, it wont get added

I'm pretty sure I could explain to staff who refused how it is a good addition.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Prolly should just cuz they haven’t given opinions since like the beginning.

 

[Odinson]

I'm pretty sure I could explain to staff who refused how it is a good addition.

You should definitely